Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[1999] NSWSC 503

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 503

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

27 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:

27 May 1999

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :	Mr G O'L Reynolds S.C. Mr R G McHugh (Plaintiff) Mr W H Nicholas Q.C. Mr J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	On admissibility of MFI 26 - The Sydney Morning Herald article 26 May 1999 - T1656
DECISION:	See paragraph 4

DLJT: 43
(Ex Tempore - Revised)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

THURSDAY 27 MAY 1999

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (On admissibility of MFI 26 - The Sydney Morning Herald article 26 May 1999- T1656)

1    HIS HONOUR: Yesterday morning at 10 o'clock I raised with Mr Barker Q.C. the fact that media coverage of the plaintiff's presence in Brussels had been drawn to my attention: 1, as to it being on a radio station; and 2, in relation to an article in The Daily Telegraph. I did so on the basis as set out in the transcript. 2    After the morning tea adjournment (T1631), for completeness, I referred to the fact that over the adjournment I had happened to have read an article in The Sydney Morning Herald. 3    At the close of proceedings yesterday, senior counsel for the defendant, Mr Nicholas Q.C., sought to tender The Sydney Morning Herald article which is now MFI 26. Many technical difficulties attend its admissibility, and at best, in the present context, it could only be admitted as evidence of what was published in The Sydney Morning Herald rather than of the truth of that contained within the publication. 4    The matter was quite candidly, as I hope I indicated yesterday, raised in the context of what I will describe as the “psychiatric component” of the amendment application. That component will be decided upon the evidence I in fact have heard, and in the light of submissions made in regard to it. No purpose in terms of the resolution of the overall application can usefully be served by the admission into evidence of material of so little technical weight, and it will remain as MFI 26. The matter will be decided on the evidence I in fact have heard.

***********

Last Modified: